Yes, and they should be integrated with the males
Yes, but keep their units seperate from male units
No, but women should be given some basic infantry skills beyond basic training
No, women should never serve in a role where they may encounter combat
Women haven't served in combat roles. Frankly, I've been in the Navy, and naval battles aren't similar to infantry battles at all. If a woman can stand her watch during drills, she's not any more likely to flub it than a man. I mean, it wasn't a woman that ran the USS La Jolla into the USS Permit nor did a woman run the USS San Francisco into the mountain.
This thread is about "specialize in infantry". My examples from my own experience illustrate one thing....the legal and political climate of this nation give the female unfair unearned advantage in any dispute or conflict, not to mention the extra advantage the female has in currying favorable evals and promotions.
Also, I've stressed the fact that it's been necessary to lower physical qualification standards to staff the various services, and the police, and the fire departments, with their "proper" quota of women. Do think what that entails for national and civillian security issues.
I wanna have Scarecrow's baby.
It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative"
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.
Actually the issue is more prosaic.
Submariners are packed in like sardines....of the 110 enlisted on a Los Angeles class submarine, a dozen are senior enlisted, the chiefs, with their own seperate bunkroom and head and shower, in what's called "The Goat Locker". There's bunk space for 21 men on the lower deck, with a single head and shower across the passageway adjacent to the Auxilliary Machinery Room, and of the rest of the enlisted, a small handful might be sleeping with the torpedos (rare) and the rest are in the two Middle Level bunkrooms (this is about 70-80 men) sharing a common head with 1 urinal, three toilets, two showers, and three sinks.
There just isn't room to segregate the babes out.
Departments aren't required to hire a QUOTA of officers who are female. That's a common misunderstanding of EEO requirements. Instead, they are required to make sufficient EFFORTS to hire women and minorities, and this is gauged on recruitment: distributing job descriptions & hiring notices, etc.Also, I've stressed the fact that it's been necessary to lower physical qualification standards to staff the various services, and the police, and the fire departments, with their "proper" quota of women. Do think what that entails for national and civillian security issues.
While it is true that there are differing physical standards in the military between men and women, it is also true that there are differing physical standards in the military between men and men, and between different branches of the military service. The physical requirements are different between the Navy and the army, for instance. There are different standards for men and older men, as well as different standards for enlisted men, NCOs and officers.
A GAO study of this issue found that:
"There is a widespread perception that the existence of lower physical fitness standards for women amounts to a "double standard." However, the physical fitness program is actually intended only to maintain the general fitness and health of military members and fitness testing is not aimed at assessing the ability to perform specific missions or military jobs. Consequently, DOD officials and experts agree that it is appropriate to adjust the standards for physiological differences among service members by age and gender." http://www.gao.gov/archive/1996/ns96153.pdf